Poll for Lit: K&E, Weil, Cadwalader, Debevoise, or Dewey? Forum

[Anonymous User]

The partner departures are one thing, but the NY IP group is still handling a rather impressive array of high profile IP cases. I'm sad you didn't do your research.

Oh I did a ton of research, in addition to considering Desmarais LLP, where I strangely learned a whole lot more about Kirkland NY than my callback at Kirkland NY. Doing research into IP cases was my full-time job over the last few months, and Kirkland NY came up way short relative to my other options (including Weil Redwood Shores, Irell LA, and Covington DC)

You just don't sound very smart. I'll tell you why:

1) You're bashing the IP group when OP has expressed interest in litigation, not IP.
2) You're extrapolating from the caliber of the IP group that the entire office is somehow not good, especially in litigation.
3) Since I actually have seen the cases going through KE's IP roster, it's pretty definitive that it's fine.

But you can feel proud of yourself.

1) IP is the biggest presence in Kirkland's firmwide litigation, I also said *IF* OP is IP, stay away from Kirkland, my advice was expressly restricted to if he's interested in any way in IP.
2) Kirkland is band 2 for litigation in NY, along with Weil, these aren't the elite NY names
3) good for you, you were clearly not exposed to some of the work that Weil-Redwood shores or Ropes-NY does.

[Anonymous User]

1) IP is the biggest presence in Kirkland-litigation, I also said *IF* OP is IP, stay away from Kirkland

No, it isn't. Litigation is its own group at K&E, and a very prominent one at that, alongside restructuring and corporate.

2) Kirkland is band 2 for litigation in NY, along with Weil, these aren't the elite NY names

Yes, alongside Debevoise, Wachtell, and Simpson Thacher. These aren't elite NY names either.

3) good for you, you were clearly not exposed to some of the work that Weil-Redwood shores or Ropes-NY does.

And you are exposed to their work...? Not really. Anyways, I'm not sure what to take of this blatant Weil and Ropes trolling, so I'll relax and take solace in the fact that you are now just full of crap. Irell is one thing. Ropes and Weil, not really.

[Anonymous User]

refrain from challenging people's intelligence, not needed, just make your point, you seem to have some valid points
1) Kirkland is band 2 in its own city for litigation, when you think NY litigation - Kirkland isn't an auto-win in any debate, so not sure why its any better than Weil.
2) Kirkland's IP used to be the biggest player in their overall litigation group, Desmarais was the #1 rainmaker, he's gone, so's another big time IP name, their "residual" client roster might be nice, but this doesn't bode well for a firm's litigation group overall when its most profitable department loses serious talent
3) I did a lot of research, and Kirkland NY was way down on my list of options because - precisely - of the reasons mentioned above, sorry you feel so strongly about them. Do you work there?

The fact remains, Kirkland is losing its touch. I think you're wrong in not giving actual consideration to the reality that their big name partners are heading for the doors.

[Anonymous User]

Wachtell isn't an elite NY LITIGATION powerhouse. The anon who included them in that post is mistaking overall prestige for litigation prestige

[Anonymous User]

If you had to pick between Cravath on one hand, and Wachtell and Simpson on the other - and all you wanted was to do pure litigation, I think you'd be wise to choose Cravath.

With OP's choices, we're talking about [Kirkland, Weil, and Debevoise] in one-tier, and [Cadwalader/Dewey] in another.

[Anonymous User]

refrain from challenging people's intelligence, not needed, just make your point, you seem to have some valid points
1) Kirkland is band 2 in its own city for litigation, when you think NY litigation - Kirkland isn't an auto-win in any debate

I think it's an auto-win in some debates. Not against Cravath, Davis Polk, S&C, Paul Weiss, Skadden, Debevoise, Wachtell, Simpson, Cleary, and Boies, but certainly against many other firms.

2) Kirkland's IP used to be the biggest player in their overall litigation group, Desmarais was the #1 rainmaker, he's gone, so's another big time IP name, their "residual" client roster might be nice, but this doesn't bode well for a firm's litigation group overall when its most profitable department loses serious talent

And this is what makes me so sad. I can't go into details about which statements are wrong, and why. The fact that the above is wrong makes me sad because it just seems to me like you didn't do your research. And you still keep on conflating the IP group with the litigation group. I don't know why you're doing that.

3) I did a lot of research, and Kirkland NY was way down on my list of options because - precisely - of the reasons mentioned above, sorry you feel so strongly about them. Do you work there?

I don't feel as strongly about them. People have various reasons for turning down various firms. I'm just a little puzzled as to why a seemingly intelligent person didn't do his research, or at least didn't do it properly.

[Anonymous User]

If you had to pick between Cravath on one hand, and Wachtell and Simpson on the other - and all you wanted was to do pure litigation, I think you'd be wise to choose Cravath.

With OP's choices, we're talking about [Kirkland, Weil, and Debevoise] in one-tier, and [Cadwalader/Dewey] in another.

Are those Chamber's rankings from before or after Cadwalader got the new litigation partners?

[Anonymous User]

If you had to pick between Cravath on one hand, and Wachtell and Simpson on the other - and all you wanted was to do pure litigation, I think you'd be wise to choose Cravath.

With OP's choices, we're talking about [Kirkland, Weil, and Debevoise] in one-tier, and [Cadwalader/Dewey] in another.

Are those Chamber's rankings from before or after Cadwalader got the new litigation partners?

1) Partners don't change the Chambers rankings as much as you think.
2) Cadwalader can be Band 1 on Chambers for all I care. It's still one of the most toxic work environments in biglaw.

[Anonymous User]

If you had to pick between Cravath on one hand, and Wachtell and Simpson on the other - and all you wanted was to do pure litigation, I think you'd be wise to choose Cravath.

With OP's choices, we're talking about [Kirkland, Weil, and Debevoise] in one-tier, and [Cadwalader/Dewey] in another.

Are those Chamber's rankings from before or after Cadwalader got the new litigation partners?

1) Partners don't change the Chambers rankings as much as you think.
2) Cadwalader can be Band 1 on Chambers for all I care. It's still one of the most toxic work environments in biglaw.

Have you worked there?

[Anonymous User]

If you had to pick between Cravath on one hand, and Wachtell and Simpson on the other - and all you wanted was to do pure litigation, I think you'd be wise to choose Cravath.

With OP's choices, we're talking about [Kirkland, Weil, and Debevoise] in one-tier, and [Cadwalader/Dewey] in another.

Are those Chamber's rankings from before or after Cadwalader got the new litigation partners?

1) Partners don't change the Chambers rankings as much as you think.
2) Cadwalader can be Band 1 on Chambers for all I care. It's still one of the most toxic work environments in biglaw.

Have you worked there?

No, but I don't think the toxicity of Cadwalader is a big secret to anyone either in biglaw or the law student community.

[Anonymous User]

I think Debevoise and Kirkland are the obvious choices. Kirkland's NY IP group might not be as great as it once was, but Kirkland as a whole is great for litigation and overall the firm seems to be doing solid ITE.

I think Cadwalader is shit, pure shit, which I could tell less than an hour into my callback.

[Anonymous User]

No, but I don't think the toxicity of Cadwalader is a big secret to anyone either in biglaw or the law student community.

Haven't things gotten better there?

[NYAssociate]

.

[yellowjacket2012]

Is all this "cadwalader is shit, pure shit" etc. etc. style firm bashing a product of ATL? I have no affiliation with the firm, but I'm very curious about how someone forms an opinion like that about an entire organization.

Why one would have borderline animosity toward a private business is yet another issue.

[Anonymous User]

No, but I don't think the toxicity of Cadwalader is a big secret to anyone either in biglaw or the law student community.

Haven't things gotten better there?

Things were never good in the first place. Even before the layoffs, the firm has been known as one of the biggest sweatshops in the nation.

Also, there doesn't seem to be a lot of homegrown talent. Seems to me that they just pull in rainmakers from other firms and churn through associates.

[NYAssociate]

.

[yellowjacket2012]

Yikes.

[Anonymous User]

http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLL ... 0682662248

But to others in the profession, Cadwalader's apparent success is itself something of a cataclysmic event. The oldest law firm in America and once one of the most genteel, Cadwalader under Link went through a wrenching and controversial 1990s turnaround during which it transformed itself into perhaps the nation's most aggressively profit-focused law firm. Today's Cadwalader, at which big producers are lavishly rewarded and underperformers are shown the door, presents a stark alternative to the more conservative ways of New York's traditional top-tier firms.

"They are definitely the firm to watch," said the managing partner of one leading New York firm recently overtaken by Cadwalader in the profit charts. "Even though they recognize the business realities, most law firms still hold on to certain ways of doing things. Cadwalader is run like a corporation."

But whether a law firm should be run that way is a question Cadwalader is far from definitively answering. The departure last week of antitrust chief Steven Sunshine, lured to the firm just two years before from Shearman & Sterling and now heading to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, underscores persistent criticisms that the firm, while able to attract star laterals with high pay, is unable to build sustainable practices around them.

And Cadwalader's approach has won it a reputation for ruthlessness that suits some but turns off others.

"It's exactly the shark tank that everybody says it is," said former partner Robert Vitale, "If you're a shark, it's great."

Over lunch near the firm's World Financial Center headquarters, Link said the firm's toughness is often exaggerated and that partners generally get along well and respect each other. But he acknowledged Cadwalader can be a "rough and tumble" place.

Just read the whole article. It's sobering when the managing partner acknowledges that his firm is a terrible place to work and actively encourages that atmosphere.

Are any of these large law firms particularly fun places to work?

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLL ... 0682662248

But to others in the profession, Cadwalader's apparent success is itself something of a cataclysmic event. The oldest law firm in America and once one of the most genteel, Cadwalader under Link went through a wrenching and controversial 1990s turnaround during which it transformed itself into perhaps the nation's most aggressively profit-focused law firm. Today's Cadwalader, at which big producers are lavishly rewarded and underperformers are shown the door, presents a stark alternative to the more conservative ways of New York's traditional top-tier firms.

"They are definitely the firm to watch," said the managing partner of one leading New York firm recently overtaken by Cadwalader in the profit charts. "Even though they recognize the business realities, most law firms still hold on to certain ways of doing things. Cadwalader is run like a corporation."

But whether a law firm should be run that way is a question Cadwalader is far from definitively answering. The departure last week of antitrust chief Steven Sunshine, lured to the firm just two years before from Shearman & Sterling and now heading to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, underscores persistent criticisms that the firm, while able to attract star laterals with high pay, is unable to build sustainable practices around them.

And Cadwalader's approach has won it a reputation for ruthlessness that suits some but turns off others.

"It's exactly the shark tank that everybody says it is," said former partner Robert Vitale, "If you're a shark, it's great."

Over lunch near the firm's World Financial Center headquarters, Link said the firm's toughness is often exaggerated and that partners generally get along well and respect each other. But he acknowledged Cadwalader can be a "rough and tumble" place.

Pretty much, every big, corporate law firm is like this. At least Cadwalader's honest.

[NYAssociate]

.

[Anonymous User]

Are any of these large law firms particularly fun places to work?

Even a subsistence farmer in India can appreciate that an African war refugee probably has it worse.

[Anonymous User]

Pretty much, every big, corporate law firm is like this. At least Cadwalader's honest.

Every firm tries to turn a profit. But Cadwalader maximizes that profit in ways that most other firms would not. I think that's the point of the article.

Again, the evidence shows that most firms are willing to layoff employees or force out partners. They're just not as upfront about it as Cadwalader.

[yellowjacket2012]

Pretty much, every big, corporate law firm is like this. At least Cadwalader's honest.

Every firm tries to turn a profit. But Cadwalader maximizes that profit in ways that most other firms would not. I think that's the point of the article.

Again, the evidence shows that most firms are willing to layoff employees or force out partners. They're just not as upfront about it as Cadwalader.

I'm with NYA on this one, I had a similar argument with someone re Latham, its pretty obvious what the topic of that conversation was.

With some important/difficult decision, what you save financially on one hand you lose in reputation on the other, the problem is - as Warren Buffett says, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation but 5 minutes to lose one.

[Anonymous User]

Regarding Dewey, if the layoffs and deferrals weren't a bad sign, the fact that I constantly hear associates bicker about their colleagues from the other firm pre-merger is bad enough.

As somebody who is strongly considering Dewey (I want to do corporate, probably M&A or project finance in the energy sector), would you mind providing some insight into the firm? I understand there are some issues with the firm integrating, but in terms of stability? I don't have V10-$2.30-million-PPP-firms on the table, but I liked the people I met at Dewey and think the firm might be a pretty good fit for the practice areas I'm interested in.

Apart from the general elitism that goes on here at TLS/ATL, is Dewey really that bad of a place to be? I'm not asking relative to Deb/Cleary/DPW, but if Dewey and similar V50 firms were your options - what would be your thoughts? They had layoffs like most firms, but gave 100% offers this summer and 63 of 64ish in 2009. They had some partner losses, but with the size of the firm being what it is - is that such a terrifying thing? I'm asking because reading threads like this leave me terribly worried, but I want to know how much of this is telling OP he's an idiot for considering Dewey when he has Deb/K&E on the table (which, for litigation, is understandable), and how much of this really reflects on Dewey's firm health.

Thanks in advance for the replies!